BUSINESS/CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES
• Breach of contract involving wireless communication facilities
• Breach of contract involving the development of tanning equipment
• Breach of a Health Services Contract for indigent care reimbursement
As a judge of the Superior Court, she presided over dozens of business contract disputes in jury trials and bench trials. An example of the many cases that she handled in this area is the following matter requesting declaratory relief:
• Bench Trial, 2018 - This was a trial for declaratory relief on a business contract (Wireless Marketing Agreement) entered into by the parties. Briefly, the facts were that the Defendant desired to engage Plaintiff to provide wireless consulting, management, and development services related to the use of Defendant’s assets for the purpose of planning and implementing a marketing plan for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities as that term was defined in the contract. Further, both parties agreed that the Defendant desired that the Plaintiff proactively market Defendant-owned underutilized assets on terms that maximized revenue and minimized planning impacts and visual blight.
The core question presented by the parties’ dispute was whether under the Contract: 1.) Plaintiff had the sole and exclusive right to market, license and sublicense all located Defendant Assets to the exclusion of all others during the term; or 2.) Plaintiff had the sole and exclusive right to market, license and/or sublicense only Defendant Assets on the Asset List, and Defendant Assets not the Asset List may be marketed, licensed or sublicensed by the Defendant and any other third party designated by the Defendant. Judge Vasquez held that Plaintiff had the sole and exclusive right to market, license and sublicense all located Defendant Assets to the exclusion of all others during the Contract Term.
CIVIL RIGHTS
• Excessive force, severe injuries, and unlawful police practices
• Student Rights
DISCOVERY ISSUES
As a judicial officer, Judge Vasquez presented a refresher-training seminar to the judges on the Superior Court (Sacramento County) on Pitchess motions due to several decisions rendered by the Third District Court of Appeal. These discovery motions seek access to confidential documents located in a peace officer’s personnel file and they can be filed in both civil and criminal cases. She presented two workshops on “Best Practices in Pitchess Motions.” She also created the outline for the program and the valuable PowerPoint used during the presentation. Her power point presentation was requested by an appellate justice on the Third District Court of Appeal and other trial judges serving in other counties.
EDUCATION
• Probationary Employees
• Lay-offs of Certificated and Classified Personnel
• Student Rights
• Terminations
• Student Suspensions and Expulsions
EMPLOYMENT
•Age Discrimination, Retaliation
• Covid-related challenges based on protocol, layoff, and terminations
• Disability Discrimination and Failure to Accommodate, Retaliation
• Drug Testing in the Workplace
• Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and California Family Rights Act (CFRA)
• FEHA & Title VII Class Actions
• Lay-offs through Federal and California WARN Laws
• Lay-offs through California Education Code
• PAGA
• Personnel Policies
• Racial Discrimination, Retaliation
• Sex Discrimination
• Sexual Harassment and Discrimination, Retaliation
• Whistleblower, Retaliation, Wrongful Termination
• Wage and Hour Class Actions, Complex Civil Litigation
• Wrongful Termination, Defamation, Retaliation
As a judge of the Superior Court, she adjudicated dozens of employment cases, including sexual harassment, hostile work environment, wrongful termination, and ADA failure to accommodate under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Judge Vasquez was a faculty member of the California Center for Judicial Education and Research (CJER), providing ethics, labor and employment law, and e-business training to judges throughout California.
• Jury Trial 2019 - Plaintiff filed a sexual harassment and other causes of action lawsuit against her employer and her alleged harasser. The issues and motions filed by the parties were numerous because the harassment was alleged to have occurred over a ten-year period. The Employer contended that Plaintiff was barred by the statute of limitations and Employer was never informed by Plaintiff of the alleged sexual harassment. The case presented heavily factually and legally laden issues, e.g.:
-Whether Plaintiff could present “me too” evidence on the issue of notice and knowledge to Defendant Employer.
-Whether Plaintiffs action was barred due to the statute of limitations.
-Whether the “continuing violation doctrine” was applicable to Plaintiff’s claims.
-Whether Plaintiff could testify about Employer’s alleged retaliation, even though, the Court had summarily dismissed that cause of action from her lawsuit in a motion for summary adjudication brought by the defendant.
-Whether Plaintiff could provide testimony as to her “lay opinion” about the feelings, fears and perceptions of other female employees.
-Whether co-defendant alleged sexual harassment of other female employees should be excluded due to inadmissible character evidence, hearsay, speculative or lacking foundation.
-Whether the Plaintiff could present evidence on failure to correct by Employer.
• A representative jury trial that Judge Vasquez presided over was in the area of failure to accommodate a physical disability in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) as follows:
• Jury Trial 2018 - Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Employer had failed to reasonably accommodate her physical disability in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov’t Code section 12940 et seq) and the City’s own internal policies. Specifically, the Plaintiff asserted the following causes of action against the Employer under FEHA for: 1.) unlawful discrimination based on disability; 2) failure to prevent unlawful discrimination; 3) retaliation; 4) failure to accommodate disability; and 5) failure to engage in the interactive process. The Employer denied all allegations and ultimately obtained a verdict for the defense from the jury. The case was appealed by the Plaintiff on several grounds, notably on the issue of insufficient evident to support the jury’s verdict. The Court of Appeal affirmed the jury trial’s verdict and the trial judge’s judgment in its entirety.
• As a judicial officer, Judge Vasquez adjudicated over a dozen cases where parties requested restraining orders due to harassing behavior by disgruntled employees, ex-spouses, disgruntled customers, etc.
• As a lawyer, during her 24 -year legal career, she handled dozens of labor and employment cases. She represented both management and labor, plaintiffs and defendants, government agencies and private businesses. Her experience included handling both individual and class action cases in state and federal courts (trial and appellate levels). As a shareholder for her former law firm, she specialized in labor and employment litigation on behalf of public and private sector employers.
• As a lawyer, she represented private employers and public agencies before state and federal courts and administrative agencies, e.g., the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as well as the U.S. Office of Education, the Office of Civil Rights and the California Labor Commissioner. She had an excellent record of resolving difficult discrimination lawsuits before trial, by winning motions for summary judgment and, when necessary, resolving lawsuits for amounts deemed very reasonable by her clients. She also provided preventative legal guidance to her clients in order to avert litigation. One of her clients at the time was the California State Assembly.
• As a practicing lawyer, she represented management in several disciplinary hearings against employees before the California Personnel Board and before arbitrators pursuant to collective bargaining agreements in effect in particular cases.
• As a practicing lawyer, she represented management in several disciplinary hearings against employees before the California Personnel Board and before arbitrators pursuant to collective bargaining agreements in effect in particular cases.
• Judge Vasquez handled dozens of Wage & Hour and PAGA cases and class action lawsuits as the judge assigned to handle case management of complex civil litigation for the Court. Most of these cases settled and, in those cases, Judge Vasquez would review the settlement agreement to determine whether the settlement was “fair, adequate and reasonable” for the class members. (See Wershba v. Apple Computer (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 244, 245.) She handled several pre-trial motions, e.g., discovery motions, class action certification, and motions for summary judgment.
HEALTHCARE
• Pricing dispute for medically uninsured patients
• Complex case involving indigent medical care reimbursement
INSURANCE
• Breach of insurance policy agreement; indemnity
• Insurance Coverage
• Insurance Subrogation
• Insurance Bad Faith
LABOR LAW
From 1983 to 1985, Judge Vasquez worked as an appellate attorney in the General Counsel’s Office of the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). Her experience with the PERB consisted of writing appellate briefs and presenting appellate argument in defense of final Board unfair labor practice decisions when aggrieved parties sought review in the appellate courts. Further, she sought and obtained injunctive relief on behalf of the Board against alleged unfair labor practices in the workplace. Lastly, she handled some difficult and novel cases such as a school district’s bankruptcy case wherein the school district sought to enjoin PERB’s adjudication of the alleged unfair labor practice charges. PERB was successful and the Board was able to process the charge.
•As a partner for her prior law firm, she represented management in many arbitration hearings for breach of the collective bargaining agreement in those particular cases.
LEMON LAW
• Automobile, Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Lemon Law)
PERSONAL INJURY/NEGLIGENCE/TORT
• Assault and Battery
• Catastrophic injury, auto and otherwise
• Child Abuse and Sexual Assault
• Dangerous Condition of public property
• Elder Abuse (Financial and Physical, including wrongful death)
• Legal malpractice
• Medical Malpractice
• Negligence
• Personal Injury, including premises liability
• Personal Injury Auto, UM and UIM
• Lumbar spinal injury
As a judicial officer, Judge Vasquez adjudicated dozens of personal injury cases, including auto accidents, medical malpractice, and slip-and-fall cases. An example of the many personal injury cases that she presided over is the following slip & fall case:
• Jury Trial - Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging that Defendant was liable for her injuries suffered as a result of a slip & fall on defendant’s property. She alleged that she received no warning or indication of the wet surface and that the Defendant’s witnesses contradicted one another. Defendant disputed all allegations and presented witness testimony that it had placed two cones to warn customers of the wet floor, and that at the time of the accident, Plaintiff denied being hurt and quickly left the store. The jury rendered a verdict for the Defendant.
• Multi-car accident jury trial cases involving serious injuries with several cross complaints by the defendants against the Plaintiff and against co-defendants.
UNLAWFUL DETAINERS
• Commercial and Residential Property Unlawful Detainer Actions
As a judicial officer, Judge Vasquez handled dozens of bench and jury trials in the area of landlord/tenant unlawful detainers. She has a published opinion in this area of the law from her days as a practicing attorney: Cazares v. Ortiz (1980) 109 Cal. App.3d Supp. 23, involving the issue of how damages should be computed for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. In this case, the Appellate Department of the Superior Court held that damages should be computed for breach of the implied warranty of habitability by recognizing the agreed contract rent as proper for the premises as impliedly warranted and reducing the agreed rent by the percentage reduction of habitability and then multiplying the difference by the number of months of occupancy.
